Lewis et al v. United States of America et al
| Robert Beard, G. Lewis Louisiana, LLC, Brenda Gayle Lewis, Garry Lewis, Carolyn Milton and Town of Livingston, LA |
| Michael Clancy, United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States of America |
| 3:2017cv01644 |
| November 9, 2017 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana |
| Baton Rouge Office |
| John W. deGravelles |
| Richard L. Bourgeois |
| Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 702 Administrative Procedure Act |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
192
RULING and ORDER : The 171 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED; Defendant United States Army Corps of Engineers determination of Clean Water Act juris diction over the Milton Lane Bayou is not in accordance with current law. However, Plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees and costs is DENIED; this motion is not yet ripe since there has not yet been a final judgment in this matter. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 01/29/2025. (ELW)
|
|
Filing
175
RULING AND ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sur-Opposition to Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 170) is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' Sur-Opposition (Doc. 170-1) shall be accepted into the re cord. Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental and Amending Complaint for Want of Jurisdiction (Doc. 160) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED in that the following claims are DISMISSED W ITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction: (1) Plaintiffs' claims for damages under the CWA (Count II), and (2) Plaintiffs' request for a stay under the APA for the EPA's actions on Lewis's 93.7-acre tract (the RV Resort) (Count I II). With respect to Count Is claims under the FTCA that, as a matter of Louisiana law, Defendants voluntarily undertook a duty to timely process the AJD requests and CWA permit applications and otherwise promptly deal with Plaintiffs, the Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 03/21/2024. (KDC)
|
|
Filing
80
RULING and ORDER: 69 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The Court orders Defendants to submit to the Court a proposed schedule for the actions set forth in its Ruling, (Doc. 67), within seven (7) days from the date of this Ruling and Order. Plaintiffs are granted five (5) days from the date of Defendants proposed schedule to respond. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 9/16/2020. (ELW)
|
|
Filing
67
RULING and ORDER : 35 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED without preudice. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 8/4/2020. (ELW)
|
|
Filing
30
RULING and ORDER 26 Motion for Partial Dismissal of First Amended Complaint is granting in part and denying in part. Particularly, with regard to Count I, the motion to dismiss the regulatory taking claim under Rule 12(b)(1) is GRANTED, and thi s claim is dismissed without prejudice; the motion to dismiss the procedural due process claims under Rule 12(b)(6) is DENIED as to the silviculture rights and GRANTED as to the right to access drinking water. The motion is DENIED AS MOOT with regard to Count III (equitable estoppel) and Count IV (unreasonable delay claims adverse to the EPA). The motion with regard to Count VI is DENIED. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 09/25/2019. (ELW) Modified on 9/27/2019 to edit text (ELW).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Louisiana Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
